[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH3MdRUh-RHhntzvvwZwMuhqDd0O8kPyOqsFu5reJs8PU+Ss9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:03:26 -0700
From: Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
To: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value
tracking in verifier
I did an experiment with one of our internal bpf programs.
The program has 1563 insns.
Without Edward's patch:
processed 13634 insns, stack depth 160
With Edward's patch:
processed 15807 insns, stack depth 160
So the number of processed insns regressed by roughly 16%.
Did anybody do any similar experiments to quantify the patch's
impact in verification performance (e.g., in terms of processed insns)?
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Edward Cree via iovisor-dev
<iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org> wrote:
> This series simplifies alignment tracking, generalises bounds tracking and
> fixes some bounds-tracking bugs in the BPF verifier. Pointer arithmetic on
> packet pointers, stack pointers, map value pointers and context pointers has
> been unified, and bounds on these pointers are only checked when the pointer
> is dereferenced.
> Operations on pointers which destroy all relation to the original pointer
> (such as multiplies and shifts) are disallowed if !env->allow_ptr_leaks,
> otherwise they convert the pointer to an unknown scalar and feed it to the
> normal scalar arithmetic handling.
> Pointer types have been unified with the corresponding adjusted-pointer types
> where those existed (e.g. PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE[_ADJ] or FRAME_PTR vs
> PTR_TO_STACK); similarly, CONST_IMM and UNKNOWN_VALUE have been unified into
> SCALAR_VALUE.
> Pointer types (except CONST_PTR_TO_MAP, PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL and
> PTR_TO_PACKET_END, which do not allow arithmetic) have a 'fixed offset' and
> a 'variable offset'; the former is used when e.g. adding an immediate or a
> known-constant register, as long as it does not overflow. Otherwise the
> latter is used, and any operation creating a new variable offset creates a
> new 'id' (and, for PTR_TO_PACKET, clears the 'range').
> SCALAR_VALUEs use the 'variable offset' fields to track the range of possible
> values; the 'fixed offset' should never be set on a scalar.
>
> As of patch 12/12, all tests of tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier
> and tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align pass.
>
> v3: added a few more tests; removed RFC tags.
>
> v2: fixed nfp build, made test_align pass again and extended it with a few
> new tests (though still need to add more).
>
> Edward Cree (12):
> selftests/bpf: add test for mixed signed and unsigned bounds checks
> bpf/verifier: rework value tracking
> nfp: change bpf verifier hooks to match new verifier data structures
> bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values
> bpf/verifier: more concise register state logs for constant var_off
> selftests/bpf: change test_verifier expectations
> selftests/bpf: rewrite test_align
> selftests/bpf: add a test to test_align
> selftests/bpf: add test for bogus operations on pointers
> selftests/bpf: don't try to access past MAX_PACKET_OFF in
> test_verifier
> selftests/bpf: add tests for subtraction & negative numbers
> selftests/bpf: variable offset negative tests
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/bpf/verifier.c | 24 +-
> include/linux/bpf.h | 34 +-
> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 56 +-
> include/linux/tnum.h | 81 +
> kernel/bpf/Makefile | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/tnum.c | 180 ++
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1943 ++++++++++++---------
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 462 ++++-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 293 ++--
> 9 files changed, 2034 insertions(+), 1041 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/tnum.h
> create mode 100644 kernel/bpf/tnum.c
>
> _______________________________________________
> iovisor-dev mailing list
> iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org
> https://lists.iovisor.org/mailman/listinfo/iovisor-dev
Powered by blists - more mailing lists